Introduction to the textual criticism of the Greek New TestamentNestle, Eberhard
Religion
Introduction to the textual criticism of the Greek New Testament
Nestle, Eberhard
Bible. New Testament -- Criticism, Textual
Our second source of material for the reconstruction of the text of the
New Testament is the early Versions. The value of their testimony
depends on their age and fidelity. When did the first versions
originate? This question reminds us of the Inscription on the Cross, a
portion of which is still exhibited in Rome. It was written in Hebrew,
Greek, and Latin. But we may get further back still. Palestine at the
time of Christ was a country where the most diverse languages and
dialects came into contact with each other. In the last century B.C. a
transformation had occurred, which might be regarded as a counterpart to
the supplanting of Norman French by English, or of Low by High German.
Aramaic had already taken the place of the old Hebrew, and after the
time of Alexander came the intrusion of Greek, and later still of Latin.
Some of the disciples of Jesus bore old Hebrew names, like James
(Ἰάκωβος) and John (Ἰωάννης); others had names wholly or partly Aramaic,
as Cephas (= Peter), the cognomen of Simon, and Bartholomew; while
others, again, had Greek names, as Philip (Φίλιππος) and Andrew
(Ἀνδρέας). To the question what language Jesus Himself spoke, the most
probable answer is that it was Aramaic with a Galilean colouring. “Thou
art a Galilean, thy speech bewrayeth thee,” said the Jerusalem girl to
Peter. The Galileans, like the Babylonians and the Samaritans, were
recognisable by their not distinguishing the gutturals so sharply as the
pure Jews did. At the same time, Jesus certainly understood the Hebrew
of the Old Testament. But those words of His that have been preserved
are Aramaic—_talitha_, _abba_, and so is _sabaqtani_ in Matthew xxvii.
46, and Mark xv. 34, if that is the original form of the text, and not
_asabthani_, as a number of manuscripts show.
In what language, however, the first record of the preaching of the
Gospel was made, whether it was in the classic Hebrew of the Old
Testament or in the Aramaic of the time, is still subject of
dispute.[81] But as this question is of moment only for the original
sources, and even then for only a certain part of the New Testament—viz.
the Gospels—it does not fall to be considered here. We have to do only
with those versions that are derived from the Greek, and again with
those of them only that are important for the criticism of the text,
which are the oldest.
The versions which are of consequence here may be placed under three or
four heads.
[Sidenote: East.]
In the East, Antioch, with its semi-Greek, semi-Syrian population, very
early became the centre of the new faith, which, indeed, obtained its
name there, and must very soon have established itself in Damascus and
Mesopotamia. In that region the form of Aramaic now commonly known as
Syriac was spoken.
[Sidenote: West, South.]
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account